I'm currently in a bit of a quandry.  While I feel I've got a good  
feel for using the multcomp package for posthoc tests, I've been left  
with two questions - mainly by colleagues who read my results (and, I  
fear, reviewers in the future, as the results from glht are not  
something typically repoprted in many journals).

To whit, I have two questions

1) How do _you_ report results from the multcomp package?  Do you have  
a favorite adjustments to use (I've become rather fond of the False  
Discovery Rate after reading several recent papers about it, as well  
as it's cousin, the sharpened False Discovery rate, for which I've  
whipped up some code if anyone would like it)?   What would you find  
acceptable and understandable as a reviewer?

2) But, sometimes, you want your old Dunnett's test and Ryan's Q - or,  
really, any of the tests from the wonderful Day and Quinn 1989  
Ecological Monographs paper.  I've not had much luck looking beyond  
Tukey's HSD.  Has anyone found any good code for some of these other  
common posthocs?  I admit, I might just be missing some crucial  
package, although I've looked around a good bit.


Thanks, and I look forward to your answers!

-Jarrett




----------------------------------------
Jarrett Byrnes
Postdoctoral Associate, Santa Barbara Coastal LTER
Marine Science Institute
University of California Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6150


	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

